Why would it have been worse if a visiting speaker had been a re-assigned Catholic Priest?
Certainly, no group of re-assigned Catholic Priests could ever match the culture of Vancouver--which is well known to anyone who is familiar with the goings on in that place.
Louise Colet type histrionics.
I am very much afraid that Blatham( I do not know whether he is referencing Canadian Law) is unaware that an "indictment" is not a "conviction".
In a Legal primer- "Black's Law Dictionary"- 7th Edition- it reads:
"An indictment is merely a charge which must be proved at trial BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT before a defendant can be convicted"
Blatham's fantasies extend to visions of Libby in prison in a "married" state.
Blatham apparently is not aware of the provision which allows US presidents to pardon convicted felons. The matrix was indelibly set by Bill Clinton, who in his last days in office, pardoned many a miscreant, among whom was the felon, Marc Rich(who allegedly was up to his eyeballs in the Oil for Food UN scandal).
I do hope that Blatham can read up on Indictments, convictions and presidential pardons before he relegates Mr. Libby to prison.
( I do know that Rostenkowski spent time in jail but it was more of a country club than a jail--perhaps they don't have those types of incarceration in Canada)
You do understand I trust that, just as it was the case with your other incarnations here, we shan't be talking.
Of course not. I have observed that one one is whipped, one avoids the whipper.
Does that collar chafe, Blatham?